Energy Efficiency in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota's Industrial Compressed Air Systems

West North Central compressor sys EE cost curve-Final.png
West North Central compressor sys EE cost curve-Final.png

Energy Efficiency in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota's Industrial Compressed Air Systems

2,800.00

This report analyzes energy efficiency potentials and their cost-effectiveness in industrial compressed air systems in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota, separately.

Add To Cart

Pages: 74    |     Figures: 31    |       Tables: 23

File format: PDF

Publication date: October 2017

Research Director: Ali Hasanbeigi, Ph.D.

Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC.

Report sample PDF preview

Notice: Once the order has been completed, the PDF file of the report(s) you purchased with a unique ID number will be delivered to the email you have provided, up to 3 business days after receipt of your payment.

Don't forget to Follow us on LinkedIn and Facebook to get the latest about our new reports, projects, and news.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Industrial electric motors account for over 70% of electricity consumption in manufacturing in the U.S. Motors are used to drive pumps, fans, compressed air systems, material handling, processing systems and more. Industrial motor systems represent a largely untapped cost-effective source for energy savings that could be realized with existing commercialized technologies. Compressed air systems are widely used throughout manufacturing industries. In many industrial facilities, air compressors are among the highest electricity consuming equipment. Inefficiencies in compressed air systems are common.

One of the major barriers to effective policy making and increased action by states and utilities to improve energy efficiency in industrial compressed air systems is the lack of information and data on the magnitude and cost-effectiveness of the energy savings potential in industrial compressed air systems in each state. This lack of information creates an obstacle to developing a comprehensive and effective strategy, roadmap, and programs for improving compressed air systems efficiency cost-effectively. It is far easier to quantify the incremental energy savings of substituting an energy-efficient motor for a standard motor than it is to quantify the energy conservation of applying other energy efficiency and system optimization practices to an existing compressed air system. 

Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC. conducted a large initiative to study industrial motor systems in 30 states from different U.S. regions. This includes the top 20 U.S. states in terms of industrial energy consumption. We focused on industrial pumps, fans, and compressed-air systems which together account for over 70% of electricity use in U.S. industrial motor systems.

This report by Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC. focuses on analyzing energy use, energy efficiency, and CO2 emissions-reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in selected West North Central U.S. States of Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota. We have also published similar reports for industrial pump systems and fan systems for these states.

Now that states have different programs to set targets, including passing legislation to enact formal energy efficiency resource standards, setting long-term energy savings targets through utility commissions tailored to each utility, or incorporating energy efficiency as an eligible resource in renewable portfolio standards (RPS), investment in energy efficiency in industrial compressed air systems to tap into the huge saving potentials quantified in this report can help utilities to meet their targets, reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and thereby help with climate change mitigation.

In addition, energy efficiency in industrial motor systems stimulates economic growth and creates jobs in a variety of ways (direct, indirect, and induced jobs creation). Investment in energy efficiency creates more jobs per dollar invested than traditional energy supply investments. Energy efficiency in industrial motor systems also creates more jobs in the local economy, whereas energy supply jobs and investment dollars often flow outside the state.

Key analyses and results included:

  • Electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in each state studied
  • Electricity use for motor systems and compressed air systems by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in each state studied
  • Electricity use by industrial compressed air system by size in each state studied
  • Market barriers to energy efficiency in industrial motor and compressed air systems
  • Energy Efficiency Cost Curves for industrial compressed air systems for each state using ten major energy efficiency measures
  • Energy saving potential and cost of conserved energy (US$/MWh-saved) for each efficiency measures in each state studied
  • The cost-effective and total technical energy efficiency potential in industrial compressed air systems in each state studied
  • Energy saving potential for each energy efficiency measure by system size
  • GHG emissions reduction potential for each efficiency measure in each state
  • Sensitivity of the results with respect to changes in electricity prices and discount rates
  • Implications for markets, utilities, and policy makers

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Who should read this report?

  • Utilities
  • Government energy and environmental agencies
  • State regulators and policy makers
  • Energy Service Companies (ESCOs)
  • Demand Response (DR) service and technology providers
  • Energy management service and technology providers
  • Motor, compressor, and compressed air systems service and technology providers
  • Energy efficiency equipment vendors
  • Climate and environmental NGOs and think tanks
  • Investor community

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Table of Contents

Executive Summary  

1. Introduction

2. Market Barriers to Energy Efficiency in Motor and Compressed Air Systems     

3. Energy Use in Industrial Motor and Compressed Air Systems in each State, by Manufacturing Subsector       

3.1. Industrial Electricity Use in each State by Manufacturing Subsector    

3.2. Industrial Motor Systems Electricity Use in each State by Manufacturing Subsectors 

3.3. Electricity Use in Industrial Compressed Air Systems in each State by Manufacturing Subsectors    

3.4. Electricity Use in Industrial Compressed Air Systems in each State by System Size  

4. Energy Efficiency Potential and Cost in Industrial Compressed Air Systems in each State        

4.1. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in Iowa       

4.2. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in Kansas  

4.3. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in Missouri  

4.4. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in Nebraska

4.5. Energy-Efficiency Cost Curve for Industrial Compressed Air Systems in South Dakota

4.6. Sensitivity Analyses        

5. Summary and Implications for Markets, Utilities, and Policy Makers       

5.1. Summary

5.2. Implications for Markets, Utilities, and Policy Makers    

Appendices    

Appendix 1. List of acronyms

Appendix 2. List of Figures and Tables         

Appendix 3. Methodology and Scope of the Study    

Appendix 4. Bibliography and References    

Appendix 5. Related Reports from Global Efficiency Intelligence, LLC.        

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Figures

Figure 1. Global total final electricity use by end use in 2014

Figure 2. Electric motor systems energy use profile

Figure 3. Final electricity consumption in motor-driven systems in the IEA’s New Policies and 450 Scenarios      

Figure 4. Illustration of two industrial electric motor-driven systems: (a) normal and (b) efficient   

Figure 5. A typical compressed air system   

Figure 6. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in Iowa in 2015        

Figure 7. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in Kansas in 2015    

Figure 8. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) in Missouri in 2015

Figure 9. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS code 31-33) in Nebraska in 2015

Figure 10. Industrial electricity use by manufacturing subsector (NAICS 31-33) in South Dakota in 2015 

Figure 11. Share of motor systems from total electricity use in manufacturing in Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, and South Dakota in 2015

Figure 12. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In Iowa in 2015      

Figure 13. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In Kansas in 2015 

Figure 14. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In Missouri in 2015

Figure 15. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In Nebraska in 2015           

Figure 16. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) In South Dakota in 2015           

Figure 17. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in Iowa in 2015   

Figure 18. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in Kansas in 2015          

Figure 19. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in Missouri in 2015         

Figure 20. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in Nebraska in 2015       

Figure 21. Estimated industrial compressed air systems electricity use by system size in South Dakota in 2015 

Figure 22. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in Iowa   

Figure 23. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in Iowa when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures   

Figure 24. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in Kansas           

Figure 25. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in Kansas when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures           

Figure 26. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in Missouri         

Figure 27. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in Missouri when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures         

Figure 28. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in Nebraska       

Figure 29. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in Nebraska when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures         

Figure 30. Energy Efficiency Cost Curve for industrial compressed air systems in South Dakota 

Figure 31. Comparison of energy saving potential (GWh/yr) for each efficiency measure in South Dakota when each measure is implemented in isolation or is implemented along with other measures               

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

List of Tables

Table 1. Industrial compressed air system electricity-savings potential in five West North Central U.S. states in 2015    

Table 2. Share of motor systems and compressed air systems electricity use in each U.S. manufacturing subsector    

Table 3. Industrial motor systems electricity use by manufacturing subsectors (NAICS code 31-33) for each state studied in 2015       

Table 4. Share of compressed air systems from total electricity use in manufacturing and from industrial motor systems electricity use in each state in 2015  

Table 5. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Iowa ranked by final CCE      

Table 6. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in Iowa   

Table 7. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Iowa by system size (GWh/yr)        

Table 8. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Kansas ranked by final CCE31

Table 9. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in Kansas           

Table 10. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Kansas by system size (GWh/yr)        

Table 11. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Missouri ranked by their final CCE

Table 12. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in Missouri         

Table 13. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Missouri by system size (GWh/yr)        

Table 14. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Nebraska ranked by their final CCE          

Table 15. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in Nebraska       

Table 16. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in Nebraska by system size (GWh/yr)        

Table 17. Cumulative annual electricity saving and CO2 emission reduction potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in South Dakota ranked by their final CCE    

Table 18. Total annual cost-effective and technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in South Dakota 

Table 19. Cumulative annual electricity saving potential for efficiency measures in industrial compressed air systems in South Dakota by system size (GWh/yr)

Table 20. Sensitivity analyses for the cost-effective electricity saving potentials in the industrial compressed air systems with different discount rates   

Table 21. Sensitivity analyses for the cost-effective electricity saving potentials in the industrial compressed air system with different electricity price   

Table 22. Total annual technical energy saving and CO2 emissions reduction potential in industrial compressed air systems in the studied states           

Table 23. Policies driving customer-funded energy-efficiency programs

Go Back to U.S. Industrial Motor Systems Energy Efficiency Reports Page